Standardize formatting of those macrolanguage disambiguation pages?[edit source]
It seems that formats between random 2 pages under this category are different, any ideas to make a standard formation for them? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 11:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I just picked out about 15 random tests and the only format which deviated was Wp/hmn (Hmong). I think the main reason is whether or not the macro language is generally accepted as valid. For example Wn/lv (Latvian) is a macro language, but the code is also generally used for standardized Latvian, making this code a valid code; while Hmong is probably not accepted for projects in the macro variant. --OWTB (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
There are two contributors to the problem:
LangCom itself is a little ambiguous about macrolanguages. De jure, it discourages projects in macrolanguages. De facto, if the constituent languages are so close as to be mutually intelligible, they may prefer a project in a macrolanguage to separate, individual projects.
Several codes for macrolanguage projects were in use and grandfathered when the current policy went into effect. So those codes will always remain valid.
I wouldn't worry about consistency too much on these. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)